Archive for March, 2009

I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed the House Republicans’ number-free budget. And I’m looking forward to the expanded version they’ve promised for next week — the one that won’t have any letters in it either.

Republican Road To Remedial Math (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane

The purported Republican budget
Has no numbers, so how can we judge it?
There’s no dollars or sense
In this PR offense.
It appears they decided to fudge it.

I could have sworn that Obama’s 60 Minutes interview was both serious and informative. But I guess that’s what happens when you watch something yourself, instead of relying on press accounts. Silly me! Somehow I missed the part where Obama laughed it up over our economic hardship.

On the other hand, perhaps it’s because it NEVER HAPPENED!

Yes, there was a bit of gallows humor in the course of Steve Kroft’s interview with the President. But the laughter-police media has completely mischaracterized the President’s demeanor.

And that brings me to my latest limerick:

Ode To The Laughter-Police
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Watch the press-buzzards busily mocking:
“The President laughed — oh, how shocking!”
Distortion’s their game
As they try to place blame.
Wake me up when there’s something worth knocking.

What delicious irony — Brit Hume bitching about blogger partisanship. And then thanking rightwingers Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center “for the tremendous amount of material that the Media Research Center provided me for so many years when I was anchoring Special Report. I don’t know what we would have done without them.”

Fuming About Hume (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane

The blogs are a threat to the news
Cuz they’re slanted, says Hume, in their views.
A fellow from Fox
Casting “partisan” knocks?
To Hume I must say, “Brit, j’accuse.”

I practiced law for over a dozen years and negotiated lots of contracts. And, unlike the Bush administration, I always kept my poker face. Why? Because if you want the best possible deal, you must make the other party think that he needs you more than you need him.

So, for example, when you tell banks that they’re too big to fail, you disincentivize them from cooperating, or even telling you the truth. That’s why I’m not surprised that 13 of the “top 23 private recipients of taxpayer-funded bailouts under the $700 billion program” enacted by the Bush administration “owed more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes” and that they lied about it on their TARP contracts.

Why bother being honest? After all, it’s not as if Bush’s Treasury Department made them back up their statements with actual tax records. Of course not — they were too big to fail.

This brings me to my latest limerick:

Tough Negotiators, Those Bushies!
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Dear bank, we can not let you fail.
You’re too big. Pay no mind if we wail
That you owe us back tax.
Do not worry. Relax!
Cuz that huge bailout check’s in the mail.

Fleischer: “After September 11th having been hit once how could we take a chance that Saddam might strike again? And that’s the threat that has been removed and I think we are all safer with that threat removed.”

Matthews: “I’m proud that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind argument…and the American people are too.”

This brings me to my latest limerick:

Ode To Ari Fleischer
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Dear Ari, your lies just keep flying.
But sorry, we still are not buying.
That nine-one-one hit
Was not Saddam, you twit!
And to say so is shameful. Stop lying!

It seems Republican National Committee members are having second, third, and fourth thoughts about having named Michael Steele to be Chairman of the RNC. And it’s not just his humiliating apology to Rush Limbaugh, his mismanagement of the RNC, and a pair of ethics issues:

In just a month on the job, Steele has insisted that government jobs aren’t real jobs. He’s raised the specter of undermining moderate Republican incumbents. He’s given multiple interviews in which he’s shown humiliating confusion about the basics of public policy. His efforts to make the Republicans “off the hook” and “beyond cutting edge” are already the subject of widespread ridicule. The man, by all appearances, doesn’t have the foggiest idea what he’s doing.

So what’s my take on all this? I think Michael Steele is perfect for the job:

Steele-Buyers’ Remorse (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Are Republicans starting to feel
That they erred when the named Michael Steele
As the RNC head?
(Maybe Limbaugh instead?)
Funny … Dems think that Steele is ideal.